SS definitely fixed rupees. Unless for some reason you don't buy anything, you regularly have to use the rupees you find in a way that makes it rare for you to have a full wallet. You need to buy potions (fairies are much less common) and gear, upgrades for said gear and wallets and other stuff in Beedle's shop. In short, rupees are useful for something and it should be rare to find rupees with your wallet full.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is the Zelda series REALLY formulaic? Is it in need of an overhaul?
- Thread starter mooooose
- Start date
SS definitely fixed rupees. Unless for some reason you don't buy anything, you regularly have to use the rupees you find in a way that makes it rare for you to have a full wallet. You need to buy potions (fairies are much less common) and gear, upgrades for said gear and wallets and other stuff in Beedle's shop. In short, rupees are useful for something and it should be rare to find rupees with your wallet full.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
Sorry, thought they were talking about Zelda 1
That is what I was talking about. What are you talking about?
Well, if you have a game based around the sky, better make it fun to be in the sky. Maybe that was the problem I had with it. Other than doing dungeons and saving world, I had no reason to venture out and see what else the world held for me. It never had that open world moment that OoT had when you first hit Hyrule Field.
I am hoping the Wii-U just brings way more detail to the game. I want to hunt around and find more hidden things.
I'm fine with it so long as it's kept more colorf-oh wait that's Skyward Sword. OK just stick with that.
I finished the game in 30 hours without a shield or using a single potion
the rupee problem is still a problem, though improved from twilight princess
Supermanisdead
Member
just because you didn't spend the money, doesn't mean there wasn't stuff to buy. what a silly argument.
OnettHansen
Member
I honestly think that the games just needs a slight difficulty hike.
Not like ridiculous dark souls levels of difficulty, but make it more challenging than "enter dungeon, find item, use item on dungeon boss, repeat"
Not like ridiculous dark souls levels of difficulty, but make it more challenging than "enter dungeon, find item, use item on dungeon boss, repeat"
I was recently playing Wind Waker for the first time and enjoying it somewhat but it hit me how formulaic it really was. The most recent Zelda I had played before WW was OoT3D and the way the two games are structured is almost identical; so much so that I almost felt as if I had played WW before. It's not uncommon for Nintendo to rehash but that's no excuse really. It would be great for Zelda to have an overhaul to its formula to add some variation to the series but it probably wont happen since the series sells well enough with the current formula.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
The other day I thought that a Tokusatsu-style Zelda would be cool. Seriously. A real twist to the series that wouldn't take itself seriously.
Realistic HD graphics, but at the same time most of the enemies would all be designed so they literally looked like people wearing suits. You know, exaggerated, acted animations, and non-moving mouths and such. You'd also have jazzy, Tokusatsu heroic versions of the Zelda themes, and stock-sound effects.
Link would transform into a Tokusatsu-style outfit based off the classic Tunic, with a kicking-rad mask, and all of his gear would be part of the suit. A grapple hook, rocket-powered Pegasus Boots, a deployable Roc's Cape, cool shit like that. He'd also have an Epona-style motorcycle too that he'd call with a special flute. And of course the Master Sword and Shield would be included. Civilian Link could explore the town during the day and gather info and such, while Transformed Link would take over at night fighting monsters, and chasing down villains to their lair. Think Majora Mask-style game progression.
And an M.I.B. style Tingle would be his coordinator, beaming him down instructions through the advanced Tingle Tuner.
Realistic HD graphics, but at the same time most of the enemies would all be designed so they literally looked like people wearing suits. You know, exaggerated, acted animations, and non-moving mouths and such. You'd also have jazzy, Tokusatsu heroic versions of the Zelda themes, and stock-sound effects.
Link would transform into a Tokusatsu-style outfit based off the classic Tunic, with a kicking-rad mask, and all of his gear would be part of the suit. A grapple hook, rocket-powered Pegasus Boots, a deployable Roc's Cape, cool shit like that. He'd also have an Epona-style motorcycle too that he'd call with a special flute. And of course the Master Sword and Shield would be included. Civilian Link could explore the town during the day and gather info and such, while Transformed Link would take over at night fighting monsters, and chasing down villains to their lair. Think Majora Mask-style game progression.
And an M.I.B. style Tingle would be his coordinator, beaming him down instructions through the advanced Tingle Tuner.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
They fixed it in a way. Some items cost a ton more and you don't get as many rupees as in other games (also you're able to get your wallet upgrades much quicker).
SS is harder than the other games, as I mentioned before in this thread, because enemy attacks usually do at least 1 complete heart of damage, bosses do at least two hearts worth of damage. Also the item menus no longer pause the game. You have to choose your item in real-time, putting a bit more tension into some battles, which I actually liked very much.
You can also unlock Hero Mode which doubles the damage but locks your energy bar at six hearts with no heart upgrades and no random heart drops, so the only methods to refill your energy is collecting fairies, drinking potions or sitting on stools/sleeping in beds.
Well, Wind Waker was kinda dark, but certainly way to light-hearted overall. It's a cartoonish kind of dark, compared to the more serious kind of dark in LttP or (especially) Majora's Mask.
Well, if you're playing the game only to finish it and/or to know all of the story as fast as you can, then you're actually playing it a bit wrong.
Also, some enemies must've been pretty hard to beat with no shield, especially the Stalfos'.
Not using a potion isn't really a problem I think. I rely much more on fairies than potions.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
I have tons of ideas that I'd like to see in a Zelda game, but I know it's pointless to say anything because Nintendo will be Nintendo. That's okay, because Zelda is still fun.
With that said, I honestly think that the Zelda formula is fine, it's just the intros that overstay their welcome in the more recent games in the series. I think they take too long and once the story starts rolling, you already lose interest and get bored. Games should start out with a bang and the tutorial shouldn't be a hour long with pointless fetch quests.
If there's one overhaul is that, the long intros.
With that said, I honestly think that the Zelda formula is fine, it's just the intros that overstay their welcome in the more recent games in the series. I think they take too long and once the story starts rolling, you already lose interest and get bored. Games should start out with a bang and the tutorial shouldn't be a hour long with pointless fetch quests.
If there's one overhaul is that, the long intros.
Link to the Past isn't dark at all, and neither is Twilight Princess, but you list those? Meanwhile Wind Waker's story is that to save the land of Hyrule, the Gods destroyed it, your sidekick turns out to be
a broken-hearted king who dies with his kingdom
How much darker and edgier do you need something to be than making the normally heroic goal "Save Hyrule" Ganon's goal and the normally evil goal "Destroy Hyrule" Link's? To know that the actions of Zelda at the end of Ocarina of Time doom Hyrule to its inevitable destruction, the deaths of uncounted innocents, and the forcing of the hands of the Gods? To know that the game takes place in a world with a broken Triforce and no hero?
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, is the darkest, edgiest Zelda in the series and people write it off because its presented in a colorful package. TV Tropes has a name for this sort of thing:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrapsaccharineWorld
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
B-b-but the king was already kinda sorta dead anyway!
Look, CorvoSol, I get your arguments, but that doesn't mean I have to accept them. Not yet anyway.
Since I'm currently on my chronological playthrough through the Zelda timeline (because I have nothing better to do) I will get to Wind Waker in a few weeks/months.
I will try to remember what you said about it being dark and grim and all. But for now, from what I remember, the comedic aspects of the game and it's art-style and light-heartedness just don't make it that dark and grim for me.
EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I accept your view. It's dark in an Adventure Time sorta way. I guess I can accept that.
Still doesn't make it that dark on the outside, though.
And then people would've complained that the game was way too fucking short and that it's the worst Zelda game because of that and yadda yadda.
Zelda can't win, ever.
Look, CorvoSol, I get your arguments, but that doesn't mean I have to accept them. Not yet anyway.
Since I'm currently on my chronological playthrough through the Zelda timeline (because I have nothing better to do) I will get to Wind Waker in a few weeks/months.
I will try to remember what you said about it being dark and grim and all. But for now, from what I remember, the comedic aspects of the game and it's art-style and light-heartedness just don't make it that dark and grim for me.
EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I accept your view. It's dark in an Adventure Time sorta way. I guess I can accept that.
Still doesn't make it that dark on the outside, though.
And then people would've complained that the game was way too fucking short and that it's the worst Zelda game because of that and yadda yadda.
Zelda can't win, ever.
Screamapillar
Member
I'd have to agree with your friend and also disagree with the premise of your question. Have you not played Skyward Sword? I mean that game made serious changes. Sky-diving? Check. No field? Check. Re-visiting previous areas to see them completely altered and new paths open? Check. Completely altered combat system and input device? Check. Completely changed HUD? Check. I mean it just goes on and on. If you don't find that game to be at the very least an enormous change for the series then I don't understand what you expect Nintendo to do. Outside of re-inventing the wheel.
Screamapillar
Member
Honestly, just scrapping the fetch-quests would be fine. And that's really only 3 or 4 hours out of the game's 35-40. Take out the "hunting for orbs to get out of the Silent realm" and delete all code related to searching the ocean for swimming musical notes and we'd have an un-padded, better Skyward Sword.
Even if they shaved 20 hours it would have still been a lengthy game.
LizardKing
Member
I would like to see the overworld be like dark souls. Big interconnected world with distinct areas and shortcuts between the areas. With the dungeons scattered throughout. Also at times using your collection of items to advance through parts of the over world
I do agree that the Zelda games are becoming quite formulaic.
One reason I loved MM was because it a left turn from Ocarina of Time. It was almost like Terminia was the "Dark World" of OoT. I think if perhaps more time was spent on creating a jarring difference between areas, that would be good. With the extra time investment in zones, perhaps make more things to do besides a dungeon.
The Zelda world often times becomes smaller and smaller as you accomplish more things, you don't have too much reason to spend time there. (Sorta like Vanilla WoW, everyone just stayed in IF till you had a dungeon). Adding more sidequests (like A LOT) and dynamically changing zones after events, but keeping them useful, would add a lot.
One reason I loved MM was because it a left turn from Ocarina of Time. It was almost like Terminia was the "Dark World" of OoT. I think if perhaps more time was spent on creating a jarring difference between areas, that would be good. With the extra time investment in zones, perhaps make more things to do besides a dungeon.
The Zelda world often times becomes smaller and smaller as you accomplish more things, you don't have too much reason to spend time there. (Sorta like Vanilla WoW, everyone just stayed in IF till you had a dungeon). Adding more sidequests (like A LOT) and dynamically changing zones after events, but keeping them useful, would add a lot.
Gears of War hasn't been around for 20+ years, though.
worth mentioning I think (from the Nintendo Direct video)
"Our mission in developing this new Zelda game for Wii U is quite plainly to re-think the conventions of Zelda. I'm referring to things like the expectation that the player is supposed to complete dungeons in a certain order, or that you're supposed to play by yourself ... . The things that we've come to take granted recently. We want to set aside these conventions, get back to basics and create a newborn Zelda so that players today can best enjoy the essence of the franchise. We had actually worked on this kind of challenge with Skyward Sword, but we weren't able to put effort into changing the linear-path structure of the game."
in other words, non-linear multiplayer Zelda is a go
"Our mission in developing this new Zelda game for Wii U is quite plainly to re-think the conventions of Zelda. I'm referring to things like the expectation that the player is supposed to complete dungeons in a certain order, or that you're supposed to play by yourself ... . The things that we've come to take granted recently. We want to set aside these conventions, get back to basics and create a newborn Zelda so that players today can best enjoy the essence of the franchise. We had actually worked on this kind of challenge with Skyward Sword, but we weren't able to put effort into changing the linear-path structure of the game."
in other words, non-linear multiplayer Zelda is a go
Alcoholikaust
Member
if you made an open world zelda game, everyone remotely interested in zelda games WILL WANT TO TRY IT
HitokiriNate85
Member
In short, yeah, the series is too formulaic and needs an overhaul, which I've been complaining about forever. It was awesome to see that addressed today. I'm reeeeeally interested in what they're going to do.
Non-linear progression is an enormous plus because that's a ripple decision; it'll affect the way so much of the game is designed.
Secondly, playing with others? I wonder how that would be implemented. Not everyone would be Link, which is interesting, and I don't think they'd take a Four Swords approach. I wonder if they'd try to create an online community somehow.
Non-linear progression is an enormous plus because that's a ripple decision; it'll affect the way so much of the game is designed.
Secondly, playing with others? I wonder how that would be implemented. Not everyone would be Link, which is interesting, and I don't think they'd take a Four Swords approach. I wonder if they'd try to create an online community somehow.
I really liked this, since he acknowledges that Skywards Sword did this in some ways and that they now want to tackle even more of it.
I'm worried about the announcement. I like a good amount of nonlinearity, but they specifically mentioned the concept of dungeon order. Making dungeon order nonlinear means lowering puzzle complexity and the use of items.
Plus the "playing alone" part. I love Four Swords, but I'd rather have single player and multiplayer Zeldas as separate games.
Plus the "playing alone" part. I love Four Swords, but I'd rather have single player and multiplayer Zeldas as separate games.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
I think it's still gonna be pretty linear in all. Maybe you have access to, say, three dungeons at a time and can do them in any order you like. Maybe it gets more Metroid-y, where you can basically beat the dungeon but have many places to go where you only get via a certain item you can only get in another dungeon.
I trust the Zelda team.
To me these bullet points seemed more like things they were thinking about, not necessarily ditching. Which is good. Sometimes dropping established things and building from the ground up is the way to go forward.
I'm not too concerned about puzzling either, since that goes both ways. If the order in which problems are tackled is linear you always know that a solution is within arms reach (i.e. somewhere in the dungeon). In more non-linear settings you may need to consider if you actually have the means to proceed right now. If done properly it could definitely make the progression feel very organic and satisfying - if done poorly it could suck. Seeing where Nintendo would land on this could be interesting.
A co-op feature like the Tingle Tuner could be quite fun, something like the Galaxy games.
It's not going to be a traditional co-op experience, not with the GamePad.
worth mentioning I think (from the Nintendo Direct video)
"Our mission in developing this new Zelda game for Wii U is quite plainly to re-think the conventions of Zelda. I'm referring to things like the expectation that the player is supposed to complete dungeons in a certain order, or that you're supposed to play by yourself ... . The things that we've come to take granted recently. We want to set aside these conventions, get back to basics and create a newborn Zelda so that players today can best enjoy the essence of the franchise. We had actually worked on this kind of challenge with Skyward Sword, but we weren't able to put effort into changing the linear-path structure of the game."
in other words, non-linear multiplayer Zelda is a go
Yessss yesssss.
Pie in the sky game design dream. They could make a set of dungeons with tiers of challenge levels across different areas they want the player to grow in. Say you have three dungeons (1,2,and 3), three major areas of skill growth (fighting, puzzle solving, and platforming) and three (so called) levels of skills (low, mid, high).
Dungeon 1 could have low-fighting, mid-puzzle, and high-platforming requirements.
Dungeon 2 could have mid-fighting, high-puzzle, and low-platforming requirements.
Dungeon 3 could have high-fighting, low-puzzle, and mid-platforming requirements.
Some sort of triangle that could buffer players from unexpected difficulty increases while allowing for some complexity in the design.
I'd say making your flagship move motion control only is a fairly big risk. But I guess that's one you don't care for? So it doesn't count?
Tingle Tuner was awesome. They need to bring that shit back in the remake.
A Zelda dungeon with low puzzles is a bad dungeon. That's why the first dungeons in 3D Zelda games are generally considered to be crap.
Generally considered not among the best. But crap? Huge stretch. Regardless, you're going to have a "first" dungeon, level, mission, wave anyway. If that is your definition of bad then the next Zelda is going to have a "bad" dungeon just like all the other ones then.
Of course there is going to be at least 1 no matter what. 1/7 is better than 6/7.
Similar threads
- Poll